A Reappraisal of ？ and Related Characters in the Oracle Bone Script and Bronze Script

Regarding the interpretations of the character in oracle bone script, scholars have contributed significant theories. In this essay, past interpretations are reviewed with the conclusion that this character is the shape of a soft branch. In other words, it is the original form of shao (梢, the top of a tree). If we read the oracle bones with such interpretation, then “jin (lai) (now come ) should be read as “jin lai chao” today (tomorrow) morning. If we continue to examine and in oracle bone script and bronze script, according to Wu Zhen-wu and Chen Jian, should stand for sand in red sand (彤沙—tong sa. According to oracle bone script , there were similar phenomena in its usage regarding the character . It is deduced that this character should be pronounced as “sa” and people borrowed this word and used it as to kill (殺sa) and cut (翦 jian). However, this essay suggests that it is a picto-phonetic character. It should be pronounced as , i.e. shao and articulated as jian (翦). In ancient times, the character “shao” (宵) and “yuan” (元) were interchangeable. It is not necessary to pronounce it as sha (沙). In this essay, the former scholars’ interpretations of the word (jie 捷) are reexamined as well. It is suggested that there were association in both form and sound between and . However, a problem is encountered when applying such interpretations in deciphering bronze script because in early documents, the word jie (捷) was an intransitive verb. In bronze script, it should be read as lue (略) or zhe (折). This essay also discusses the association among the characters jian (翦), jie (捷), and zhe (截) in their pronunciations. However, they should be pronounced differently in accordance with documents’ contexts. Finally, the appendixes of oracle bone script and unearthed documents such as chu jian (楚簡) bamboo script in the Kingdom of Chu are attached as evidence.